Parents who don’t vaccinate their children with MMR ‘irresponsible’, say 7 in 10 parents

In a sign that the message is starting to get through about the danger of measles, seven out of ten parents believe parents who do not vaccinate their children with MMR are being irresponsible, according to a new ComRes/ITV poll.

In a sign that the message is starting to get through about the dangers associated with measles, seven out of ten parents believe parents who do not vaccinate their children with MMR are being irresponsible, according to a new ComRes/ITV poll.

Of those questioned, just 16 per cent disagreed and 13 per cent were not sure.

Eight in ten (83 per cent) also considered the MMR triple vaccination to be a safe way to protect children against Measles, Mumps and Rubella. A small minority (5 per cent) continued to view the MMR vaccine as unsafe. This is around 2.4 million British adults.

A large majority (85 per cent) of the British public said they supported the campaign to give a million teenagers the MMR vaccine while only 5 per cent disagree and 9 per cent do not know.

Public opinion is divided, however, over whether school children not vaccinated with MMR should be refused admission to state schools to protect other children. 37 per cent agree children not vaccinated with MMR should be refused admission to state schools while 43 per cent disagree and 20 per cent don’t know.

Left Foot Forward has previously looked at the media’s shameful role in the MMR scandal here, here and here.

13 Responses to “Parents who don’t vaccinate their children with MMR ‘irresponsible’, say 7 in 10 parents”

RedKev

Oh Yes, we’ve all heard the “irresponsibility” argument before – many times . However, on average I would say, those questioning the validity of the MMR vaccine have probably researched this subject far more than the average person who blindly follows “information” presented on NHS sites.
Medical Science is a multibillion $ industry, It has proven on numerous occasions to be very selective with its findings . SO LET ME MAKE THIS VERY CLEAR – Those refusing MMR DO NOT reject good science – we demand it. We also demand all research is free from corporate and governmental interference. Until we have proper, open debates and more research into the massive increase in rates of autism etc , no one will convince me of MMR safety. Without such transparency how can you be 100% confident?

Alec

However, on average I would say, those questioning the validity of
the MMR vaccine have probably researched this subject far more than the
average person who blindly follows “information” presented on NHS sites

I wouldn’t. How can any worthwhile research take one to a conclusion based “not on bad science but deliberate fraud”?

What continues to gast my flabber is that Wakefield’s original paper – you know, the one with falsiified data and which didn’t confirm he was taking funding from pressure groups – said summat to the effect that there wasn’t a statistical links between incidence of MMR and autism.

I’ll repeat that. It. Admitted. There. Was. No. Statistical. Link.

Alas, being an academic fraud isn’t illegal. But, if he – and, anyone else – could be shown to have sought funding or balanced accounting books on this fraud and so on, I’d be for going all Al Capone on them.

There are questions BtL here which I’d be interested to hear your responses to.

As for the sigh of desperation that parents should have a “choice” in the matter, I’ll offer them a deal… don’t vaccinate if you wish. Just forget about sending your kids to State school with other kids whose parents don’t want them exposed.

sackcloth and ashes

‘I would say, those questioning the validity of the MMR vaccine have probably researched this subject far more than the average person who blindly follows “information” presented on NHS sites’.

Really? Does their ‘research’ take into account the fact that the only source to claim a link between MMR and autism not only fabricated his work (which in any case was not independently verified by other medical specialists), but had a financial interest in promoting an alternative vaccine which he had patented?

Does it take into account that in order to manufacture the ‘evidence’ for his ‘research’ the doctor in question conducted tests on children (lumbar punctures, barium meals etc) which violated the basic principles of paediatrics, and which were not approved by the Research Ethics Committee at his own hospital.
Does it take into account the fact that Andrew Wakefield is a fucking amoral liar, and that no reputable medic is prepared to defend his research, or his methods?

Autismum

‘I would say, those questioning the validity of the MMR vaccine have probably researched this subject far more than the average person who blindly follows “information” presented on NHS sites’.
I would say anyone who claims to have done thorough and extensive research on the safety of MMR and rejects it clearly couldn’t have understood what they read.

Alec

Crucially, it came after Antonio
Barboni, a doctor of forensic medicine and appointed by the judge to
independently advise the court, wrote a report saying that ‘in the
absence of any other pre-existing conditions’ it is a ‘reasonable
scientific probability’ that Valentino’s autism can be ‘traced back to
the administration of the MMR vaccine . . . by the health authority’.

Wrong.

According to the DM piece, the kid just had had a bad bout of
gastroenteritis, and went on to disregard this as Barboni would appear
to have done (assuming it wasn’t present in the strategically-placed
ellipses) and you have done.

Recent gastroenteritis presents a risk for any paediatric vaccination (and infants who miss a vaccination for this or other reason would received protection via herd immunity should uptake amongst healthy infants be sufficient). Insofar as the Italian judgement has medical value, it’s more likely that compensation is based on the examining physician’s potentially not taking that into account.

Have I mentioned that Wakefield falsified data and misrepresented himself?

Alec

That’s the same as the DM article! And you’ve blanked my response… you are not the brightest bulb in the pack, are you?

You most definitely are obligated to respond to the comments about Wakefield (including the fact he no longer is recognized as a doctor) because your claims, whether you care to admit to it or not, arise entirely from his fraudulent papers.

You would not be here were it not for him. You’d be peddling just another unknown vial of snake-oil were it not for him. You know, one of those alternative (and more expensive|) vaccination regiemes which this lying liar was accepting bungs for… so much for MMR being pushing by big bucks pharmaceuticals.

Furthermore, you most definitely are obligated to address direct responses your claims (to which Wakefield is connected only tangentially, no matter how much of a case you try to make out of a non-point) on accounts of basic argument and intellectual honesty.

I have no intention of reading another link which you beg me to read. I have read everything else you’d posted and offered responses. You’ve ignored it, and sallied onto another claim. My guess is this is ‘cos you know you have no case, and are trying to tie your opponent up in endless verification.

This is a common tactic of disassemblers.

Oh, okay, give us a single piece of medical research – not op-eds which don’t even merit the description “literature review” – which demonstrate a link between MMR and autism. If you want to extricate yourself from a hitching your wagon to that of a proven lying liar, there’ll be oodles of it.

~alec

RedKev

Oh dear, Alex. You’re a very arrogant person .It would seen you prefer to personally attack individuals rather than engaging in debate –The fact that you are not even interested in
looking at “other” information speaks volumes . If you had shown at least some degree of courtesy, we might have had a constructive discussion on this subject – sadly, that’s not going to happen now

Just to say , the Data was NOT falsified. That accusation came from a journaliist not doctors or researchers or scientists – but the letters from the journalist were published in the BMJ – to give it tacit medical backing I suppose. I don’t know about the ‘statistical link’ quote – but it should be pointed out that the research done by the team in The Royal Free, was around a novel gut disease which exists in autistic children. That research has been repilicated in 5 different countries. It is now noted that 90% of autistic children have gut problems. This could take a long time to answer!! – so better I recommend you read Martin Walker’s essays surrounding the affair.

Alec

It’s Alec. And you’re the Ariston man,
presenting a veneer of academic inquiry and open-mindedness with all the
talk whilst point-blank refusing to address to others’ responses or
acknowledge their dis/refutations of your claims.

An elementary rule of honest argument is to address and respond to all and every
counter argument; even if it’s to explain why it does not merit the
compliment of a rational oppositions. “Because I don’t feel like it” like a petulant teenager or
“it doesn’t conform to my highly narrowly defined parameters” is NOT acceptable.

Just to say , the Data was NOT falsified. That accusation came from a journaliist not doctors or researchers or scientists

???? You’re not the full schilling, are you? Wakefield has been found guilty of professional misconduct by his peers and struck off, with scientific publications from the Lancet and BMJ downwards completely repudiating any past endorsement of his lying liar’s lies.

And it’s a bit chuffin’ rich of you to dismiss the views of non-scientists when your case here is based on the non-scientists (likely not even with an undergrad degree in a science) from the DM or that Canadian site. The ones which misrepresent – quite deliberately, I have no doubt – statements that if no underlying medical conditions were present then the MMR is a potential cause of Bocca’s autism when, in the next breath, stating that the kid did have an underlying medical condition; and making-out as if “concede” is the same as “admit”.

It also is chuffin’ rich for you to firewall yourself from any criticism of Wakefield because, you say, you hadn’t referred to him, and now to tell us that his data was not falsified. You have mentioned him, so by your own terms you are obligated to respond to his comments.

Sheesh, what next? Linking to the conspiracy nutjob site whale.to… oh, wait.

~alec

RedKev

I’ve been a trade union activist for over 30 years so I’m quite used the tactics used by

Alex (if indeed that is her correct name ) . Her personal attack’s , levelled at me, for daring to challenge her perceived “wisdom” are quite typical of those bullying and intimidatory tactics used by management. “ if you can’t debate , just insult people …” – isn’t that right, Alex?

However, what disturbs me most all , is what could be seen to be her racist comments. Her dismiss of an Italian judicial judgement which questions the safety of vaccines. Is quite shocking .Dismissal because it was Italian !? Wtf!

Please tell me that it wasn’t intended to have any racist connotations, Alex ? ie that it was just a stupid comment to make!

On one point Alex is quite correct. I might not be the brightest Schelling –but, unlike Alex , I’ve never pretend to be. Being severely dyslexic I find written communication very difficult . However, it doesn’t prevent me from questioning why we have so many unanswered questions relating to the dramatic rise in autism and the possible links with vaccinations .

The following links are for those who dare to question the perceived norm (that would exclude you, Alex)